INNOVATIVE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY (ICCT)
500 MW DEMONSTRATION OF ADVANCED WALL-FIRED COMBUSTION TECHNIQUES
FOR THE REDUCTION OF NITROGEN OXIDE (NO,) EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED BOILERS
Technical Progress Report First Quarter 1996
DOE Contract Number DE-FC22-90PC8965 1
SCS Contract Number C-9 1-000027
Southern Company Services, Inc. P. 0. Box 2625
Birmingham, Alabama 35202
Cleared by DOE Patent Counsel on October 24, 1996
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use- fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any spe- cific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufac- turer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendktion, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
DISCLAIMER
Portions of this document may be illegible electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Southern Company Services, Inc. pursuant to a cooperative agreement partially funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and neither Southern Company Services, Inc. nor any of its subcontractors nor the U.S. Department of Energy, nor any person acting on behalf of either:
(a) Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately-owned rights; or
Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Department of Energy. The views and opinion of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Department of Energy.
.. 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This quarterly report discusses the technical progress of an Innovative Clean Coal Technology (ICCT) demonstration of advanced wall-fired combustion techniques for the reduction of nitrogen oxide (NO,) emissions from coal-fired boilers. The project is being conducted at Georgia Power Company’s Plant Hammond Unit 4 located near Rome, Georgia. The primary goal of this project is the characterization of the low NO, combustion equipment through the collection and analysis of long-term emissions data. The project provides a stepwise evaluation of the following NO, reduction technologies: Advanced overfire air (AOFA), Low NO, burners (LNB), LNB with AOFA, and advanced digital controls and optimization strategies. The project has completed the baseline, AOFA, LNB, and LNB+AOFA test segments, fulfilling all testing originally proposed to DOE. Phase 4 of the project, demonstration of advanced control/optimization methodologies for NO, abatement, is now in progress. The methodology selected for demonstration at Hammond Unit 4 is the Generic NO, Control Intelligent System (GNOCIS), which is being developed by a consortium consisting of the Electric Power Research Institute, PowerGen, Southern Company, Radian Corporation, U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, and U.S. Department of Energy. GNOCIS is a methodology that can result in improved boiler efficiency and reduced NO, emissions from fossil fuel fired boilers. Using a numerical model of the combustion process, GNOCIS applies an optimizing procedure to identify the best set points for the plant on a continuous basis. GNOCIS is designed to operate in either advisory or supervisory modes. Prototype testing of GNOCIS is in progress at Alabama Power’s Gaston Unit 4 and PowerGen’s Kingsnorth Unit 1 . The first commercial demonstration of GNOCIS will be at Hammond 4.
During first quarter 1996, testing of GNOCIS was conducted and field testing of three on- line carbon-in-ash monitors was completed. Open- and closed-loop testing of GNOCIS was conducted during February 1996. Tests performed during the month represented load levels of 500 MW, 400 MW, and 300 MW. Various combinations of objectives were tested including minimize NO,, minimize fly ash carbon-in-ash, and maximize efficiency. Implementation of the GNOCIS recommendations were greatly facilitated as a result of the enhancements made to the digital control system configuration. Preliminary indications on the performance on GNOCIS are encouraging. Also, field testing of three on-line carbon-in-ash monitors being evaluated at Hammond 4 was completed during February 1996. During the past eight to twelve months these monitors have been evaluated as to their accuracy, repeatability, reliability, and service requirements. The instruments that were tested include Applied Synergistics FOCUS, Camrac CAM, and Clyde-Sturtevant S E W . Preparation of the project final report is continuing with approximately 50 percent completed to date. Results from Phase 4 of the project will be integrated into the report as it becomes available.
... 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2
2.1. Test Program Methodology .......................................................................... 2
2.3. Advanced Overfire Air (AOFA) System ...................................................... 5 2.4. Low NO, Burners ......................................................................................... 6 2.5. Application of Advanced Digital Control Methodologies ............................ 7
3 . PROJECT STATUS .................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Project Summary ........................................................................................... 8 3.2. Summary of Current Quarter Activities ........................................................ 8 3.3. Short-Term Testing ....................................................................................... 9 3.4. Long-Term Generation and Emissions ......................................................... 9 3.5. Advanced Controls and Optimization ........................................................... 17 3.6. On-Line Carbon-in-Ash Monitors ................................................................ 20
4 . FUTURE PLANS ........................................................................................................ 23
. . 2.2. Unit Descripbon ............................................................................................ 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A . GNOCIS Testing Conducted First Quarter 1995
APPENDIX B . Testing of On-Line Carbon-in-Ash Analyzers
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Work Breakdown Structure ................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Inputs to Data Acquisition System ........................................................................ 4 Table 3: Phase 4 Milestones / Status .................................................................................... 8 Table 4: Short-Term Tests Conducted First Quarter 1996 ................................................ 10 Table 5: GNOCIS Testing Conducted First Quarter 1996 ................................................. 19 Table 6: Future Plans ......................................................................................................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : Plant Hammond Unit 4 Boiler .............................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Advanced Overfire Air System ............................................................................ 5 Figure 3: Low NO, Burner Installed at Plant Hammond ..................................................... 6 Figure 4: Major Elements of GNOCIS ................................................................................ 7 Figure 5: First Quarter 1996 Generation ............................................................................ 1 1 Figure 6: First Quarter 1996 Generation Histogram .......................................................... 1 1 Figure 7: First Quarter 1996 NO, Emission Levels ........................................................... 12 Figure 8: First Quarter 1996 NO, Emission Level Histogram .......................................... 12 Figure 9: First Quarter 1996 NO, Emission vs . Load Characteristic ................................. 13 Figure 10: First Quarter 1996 SO2 Emission Levels ......................................................... 13 Figure 1 1 : First Quarter 1996 SO2 Emission Histogram ................................................... 14 Figure 12: First Quarter 1996 SO2 Emissions vs . Load Characteristic .............................. 14 Figure 13: First Quarter 1996 Stack Mass Flow Rate Levels ............................................ 15 Figure 14: First Quarter 1996 Stack Mass Flow Rate Histogram ...................................... 15 Figure 15: First Quarter 1996 Stack Mass Flow Rate vs . Load Characteristic .................. 16
vi
acfin AMIS AOFA ASME
C CAA(A) CEM CFSF c1 eo DAS DCS DOE ECEM EPA EPRI ETEC F FC FWEC Flame GPC H HHV HVT
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
actual cubic feet per minute All mills in service Advanced Overfiie Air American Society of Mechanical Engineers carbon Clean Air Act (Amendments) Continuous emissions monitor Controlled Flow/Split Flame chlorine . carbon monoxide data acquisition system digital control system U.S. Department of Energy extractive CEM Environmental Protection Agency Electric Power Research Institute Energy Technology Consultants Fahrenheit fixed carbon Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation Flame Refractories Georgia Power Company hydrogen higher heating value High velocity thermocouple
vii
ICCT KPPH
LNB LO1
MOOS MW N NO, NSPS 0,02 OFA PA Psig PTC RSD S SCA scs so2 S O R I
W )
(M)Bh
Innovative Clean Coal Technology kilo pounds per hour pound@) low NO, burner loss on ignition (million) British thermal unit Mills out of service megawatt nitrogen nitrogen oxides New Source Performance Standards oxygen overfiie air primary air pounds per square inch gauge Performance Test Codes relative standard deviation sulfur specific collection area Southern Company Services sulfur dioxide Southern Research Institute
Spectrum Spectrum Systems Inc. THC total hydrocarbons UARG Utility Air Regulatory Group VM volatile matter
1. INTRODUCTION This document discusses the technical progress of a U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Innovative Clean Coal Technology (ICCT) Project demonstrating advanced wall-fired combustion techniques for the reduction of nitrogen oxide (NO,) emissions from coal- fired boilers. The project is being conducted at Georgia Power Company's Plant Hammond Unit 4 (500 MW) near Rome, Georgia. The project is being managed by Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS) on behalf of the project co-funders: Southern Company, U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), and Electric Power Research Institute. SCS is a subsidiary of the Southern Company that provides engineering, research, and financial services to other Southern Company subsidiaries. The Clean Coal Technology Program is a jointly funded effort between government and industry to move the most promising advanced coal-based technologies from the research and development stage to the commercial marketplace. The Clean Coal effort sponsors projects that are different from traditional research and development programs sponsored by the DOE. Traditional projects focus on long-range, high-risk technologies with the DOE providing the majority of the funding. In contrast, the goal of the Clean Coal Program is to demonstrate commercially feasible, advanced coal-based technologies that have already reached the "proof of concept" stage. As a result, the Clean Coal Projects are jointly fhded endeavors between the government and the private sector that are conducted as Cooperative Agreements in which the industrial participant contributes at least fifty percent of the total project cost. The primary objective of the Plant Hammond demonstration is to determine the long-term effects of commercially available wall-fired low NO, combustion technologies on NO, emissions and boiler performance. Short-term tests of each technology are also being performed to provide engineering information about emissions and performance trends. Specifically, the objectives of the projects are: 1. Demonstrate in a logical stepwise fashion the short-term NO, reduction capabilities of
the following advanced low NO, combustion technologies:
0 Advanced overfire air (AOFA) 0 Low NO, burners (LNB) 0 LNB with AOFA 0 Advanced Digital Controls and Optimization Strategies
2. Determine the dynamic, long-term emissions characteristics of each of these combustion NO, reduction methods using sophisticated statistical techniques.
3. Evaluate the cost effectiveness of the low NO, combustion techniques tested.
4. Determine the effects on other combustion parameters (e.g., CO production, carbon carryover, particulate characteristics) of applying the above NO, reduction methods.
1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. Test Program Methodology To accomplish the project objectives, a Statement of Work (SOW) was developed which included the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) found in Table 1. The WBS is designed around a chronological flow of the project. The chronology requires design, construction, and operation activities in each of the first three phases following project award.
Table 1: Work Breakdown Structure Phase Task
0 0 1 1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
2.1 2.2 2.3
2 2
3 3
Description Date Phase 0 Pre-Award Negotiations Phase 1 Baseline Characterization Project Management and Reporting Site Preparation 8/89 - 10189 Flow Modeling 9/89 - 6/90 Instrumentation 9/89 - 10189 Baseline Testing 11/89 - 4/90
8/89 - 4/90
Phase 2 Advanced Overfire Air Retrofit Project Management and Reporting 4/90 - 3/91 AOFA Design and Retrofit 4/90 - 5/90 AOFA Testing 6/90 - 3/91 Phase 3 Low NO, Burner Retrofit
3.1 Project Management and Reporting 3/91 - 8/93* 3.2 LNE3 Design and Retrofit 4/91 - 5/91 3.3 LNB Testing with and without AOFA 5/91 - 8/93*
4* 4* Advanced Low NO, Digital Control System* 8/93 - 4/96* 5* 5* Final Reporting and Disposition
5.1 Project Management and Reporting 9/95 - 6/96* 5.2 Disposition of Hardware 6/96*
* Indicates change from original work breakdown structure. Final schedule dependent upon availability of unit.
The stepwise approach to evaluating the NO, control technologies requires that three plant outages be used to successively install: (1) the test instrumentation, (2) the AOFA system, and (3) the LNBs. These outages were scheduled to coincide with existing plant maintenance outages in the fall of 1989, spring of 1990, and spring of 1991. The planned retrofit progression has allowed for an evaluation of the AOFA system while operating with the existing pre-retrofit burners. As shown in Figure 1, the AOFA air supply is separately ducted from the existing forced draft secondary air system. Backpressure dampers are provided on the secondary air ducts to allow for the introduction of greater quantities of higher pressure overfire air into the boiler. The burners are designed to be plug-in replacements for the existing circular burners.
2
AOFA Ports, l,,, Measurement
r /'
I Combustion Air I I I
Acoustic
Re heater
Economizer
I Flue Gas to $.Air Preheater
Instrument
\ Automated Data Collection System L ' Low . Continuous Emission Monitor
. Acoustic Pyrometer
. Heat Flux Transducers
. Control Room Data
v'\
Coal Feed Pipe 2 Boundary Air Ports
Figure 1: Plant Hammond Unit 4 Boiler The data acquisition system (DAS) for the Hammond Unit 4 ICCT project is a custom- designed microcomputer-based system used to collect, format, calculate, store, and transmit data derived from power plant mechanical, thermal, and fluid processes. The extensive process data selected for input to the DAS has in common a relationship with either boiler performance or boiler exhaust gas properties. This system includes a continuous emissions monitoring system (NO,, SO2, 02, THC, CO) with a multi-point flue gas sampling and conditioning system, an acoustic pyrometer and thermal mapping system, furnace tube heat flux transducers, and boiler efficiency instrumentation. The instrumentation system is designed to provide data collection flexibility to meet the schedule and needs of the various testing efforts throughout the demonstration program. A summary of the type of data collected is shown in Table 2. During each test phase, a series of four groups of tests are conducted. These are: (1) diagnostic, (2) performance, (3) long-term, and (4) verification. The diagnostic, performance, and verification tests consist of short-term data collection during carefully established operating conditions. The diagnostic tests are designed to map the effects of changes in boiler operation on NO, emissions. The performance tests evaluate a more comprehensive set of boiler and combustion performance indicators. The results from these tests will include particulate characteristics, boiler efficiency, and boiler outlet emissions. Mill performance and air flow distribution are also tested. The verification tests are performed following the end of the long-term testing period and serve to identify any potential changes in plant operating conditions.
Table 2: Inputs to Data Acquisition System Boiler Drum Pressure Cold Reheat Pressure Barometric Pressure Reheat Spray Flow
Feedwater Flow Secondary Air Flows
Main Steam Temperature Hot Reheat Temperature
Desuperheater Outlet Temp. Economizer Outlet Temp.
Air Heater Air Outlet Temp. BFP Discharge Temperature
Stack NOx Stack 0 2
Generation
Superheat Outlet Pressure Hot Reheat Pressure
Superheat Spray Flow Main Steam Flow
Coal Flows Primary Air Flows
Cold Reheat Temperature Feedwater Temperature
Desuperheater Inlet Temp. Air Heater Air Inlet Temp.
Ambient Temperature Relative Humidity
Stack SO2 Stack Opacity
Overfrre Air Flows
As stated previously, the primary objective of the demonstration is to collect long-term, statistically significant quantities of data under normal operating conditions with and without the various NO, reduction technologies. Earlier demonstrations of emissions control technologies have relied solely on data from a matrix of carefully established short-term (one- to four-hour) tests. However, boilers are not typically operated in this manner, considering plant equipment inconsistencies and economic dispatch strategies. Therefore, statistical analysis methods for long-term data are available that can be used to determine the achievable emissions limit or projected emission tonnage of an emissions control technology. These analysis methods have been developed over the past fifteen years by the Control Technology Committee of the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG). Because the uncertainty in the analysis methods is reduced with increasing data set size, UARG recommends that acceptable 30 day rolling averages can be achieved with data sets of at least 51 days with each day containing at least 18 valid hourly averages. 2.2. Unit Description Georgia Power Company's Plant Hammond Unit 4 is a Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (FWEC) opposed wall-fired boiler, rated at 500 MW gross, with design steam conditions of 2500 psig and 1000/1000"F superheatheheat temperatures, respectively. The unit was placed into commercial operation on December 14, 1970. Prior to the LNB retrofit, six FWEC Planetary Roller and Table type mills provided pulverized eastern bituminous coal (12,900 Btu/lb, 33% VM, 53% FC, 1.7% S, 1.4% N) to 24 pre-NSPS, Intervane burners. During the LNB outage, the existing burners were replaced with FWEC Control Flow/Split Flame burners. The unit was also retrofit with six Babcock and Wilcox MPS 75 mills during the course of the demonstration (two each during the spring 1991, spring 1992, and fall 1993 outages). The burners are arranged in a matrix of 12 burners (4W x 3H) on opposing walls with each mill supplying coal to 4 burners per elevation. As part of this demonstration project, the unit was retrofit with an advanced overfire air system, to be described later. The unit is equipped with a cold-side
4
ESP and utilizes two regenerative secondary air pre-heaters and two regenerative primary air heaters. The unit was designed for pressurized furnace operation but was converted to balanced draft operation in 1977. The unit, equipped with a Bailey pneumatic boiler control system during the baseline, AOFA, LNB, and LNB+AOFA phases of the project, was retrofit with a Foxboro I/A distributed digital control system for Phase 4 of the project.
2.3.
Generally, combustion NO, reduction techniques attempt to stage the introduction of oxygen into the furnace. This staging reduces NO, production by creating a delay in fuel and air mixing that lowers combustion temperatures. The staging also reduces the quantity of oxygen available to the fuel-bound nitrogen. Typical overfire air (OFA) systems accomplish this staging by diverting 10 to 20 percent of the total combustion air to ports located above the primary combustion zone. AOFA improves this concept by introducing the OFA through separate ductwork with more control and accurate measurement of the AOFA airflow, thereby providing the capability of improved mixing (Figure 2). Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (FWEC) was competitively selected to design, fabricate, and install the advanced overfire air system and the opposed-wall, low NO, burners described below. The FWEC design diverts air from the secondary air ductwork and incorporates four flow control dampers at the corners of the overfire air windbox and four overfire air ports on both the front and rear furnace walls. As a result of budgetary and physical constraints, FWEC designed an AOFA system more suitable to the project and unit than that originally proposed. Six air ports per wall were proposed, whereas four ports per wall were installed.
Advanced Overfhe Air (AOFA) System
Control Dampers AOF
Damper
/' Burners
Partition Plates and Secondary Air Duct \ Pressure Control Dampers
~
Secondary Air Duct
Figure 2: Advanced Overfire Air System
5
2.4. Low NO, Burners
Low NO, burner systems attempt to stage the combustion without the need for the additional ductwork and furnace ports required by OFA and AOFA systems. These commercially-available burner systems introduce the air and coal into the furnace in a well controlled, reduced turbulence manner. To achieve this, the burner must regulate the initial fbel/air mixture, velocities and turbulence to create a fuel-rich core, with sufficient air to sustain combustion at a severely sub-stoichiometric airhe1 ratio. The burner must then control the rate at which additional air, necessary to complete combustion, is mixed with the flame solids and gases to maintain a deficiency of oxygen until the remaining combustibles fall below the peak NO, producing temperature (around 2800°F). The final excess air can then be allowed to mix with the unburned products so that the combustion is completed at lower temperatures. Burners have been developed for single-wall and opposed-wall boilers.
eve
Dal Nozzle
~ ____
Figure 3: Low NO, Burner Installed at Plant Hammond In the FWEC Controlled Flow/Split Flame (CFSF) burner (Figure 3), secondary combustion air is divided between inner and outer flow cylinders. A sliding sleeve damper regulates the total secondary air flow entering the burner and is used to balance the burner air flow distribution. An adjustable outer register assembly divides the burners secondary air into two concentric paths and also imparts some swirl to the air streams. The secondary air which traverses the inner path, flows across an adjustable inner register assembly that, by providing a variable pressure drop, apportions the flow between the inner and outer flow paths. The inner register also controls the degree of additional swirl imparted to the codair mixture in the near throat region. The outer air flow enters the furnace axially, providing the remaining air necessary to complete Combustion. An
6
axially movable inner sleeve tip provides a means for varying the primary air velocity while maintaining a constant primary flow. The split flame nozzle segregates the codair mixture into four concentrated streams, each of which forms an individual flame when entering the furnace. This segregation minimizes mixing between the coal and the primary air, assisting in the staged combustion process. The adjustments to the sleeve dampers, inner registers, outer registers, and tip position are made during the burner optimization process and thereafter remain fixed unless changes in plant operation or equipment condition dictate further adjustments. 2.5.
The objective of Phase 4 of the project is to implement and evaluate an advanced digital controVoptimization system for use with the combustion NO, abatement technologies installed on Plant Hammond Unit 4. The advanced system will be customized to minimize NO, production while simultaneously maintaining andor improving boiler performance and safety margins. This project will provide documented effectiveness of an advanced digital control /optimization strategy on NO, emissions and guidelines for retrofitting boiler combustion controls for NO, emission reduction. The methodology selected for demonstration at Hammond Unit 4 during Phase 4 of the project is the Generic NO, Control Intelligent System (GNOCIS). The major elements of GNOCIS are shown in Figure 4.
Application of Advanced Digital Control Methodologies
0 pti mizer Combustion Models
Software *Supervisory *Communications *Archiving *Safety Constraints
DCS Integration *Operator Graphics *Configuration Modifications
*Implementation *Safety Constraints
1 Unit Plant
Operators / Engineers
Figure 4: Major Elements of GNOCIS
7
3. PROJECT STATUS
3.1. Project Summary
Baseline, AOFA, LNB, and LNB+AOFA test phases have been completed. Details of the testing conducted during each phase can be found in the following reports:
Phase 1 Baseline Tests Report [l], Phase 2 AOFA Tests Report [2] , Phase 3A Low NO, Burner Tests Report [3], and
Phase 3B Low NO, Burner plus AOFA Tests Report [4].
Chemical emissions testing was also conducted as part of the project and the results have been previously reported [5]. Phase 4 of the project -- evaluation of advanced digital optimization / controls strategies as applied to NO, abatement -- is now in progress. A list of the current activities and their current status can be found in Table 3.
I I Table 3: Phase 4 Milestones / Status Milestone status
Digital control system design, configuration, and installation Completed Digital control system startup Completed Instrumentation upgrades Completed Characterization of the unit pre- activation of advanced strategies Completed Advanced controls/optimization design 95% completed Characterization of the post- activation of advanced strategies In progress
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
3.2. Summary of Current Quarter Activities
During first quarter 1996, testing of GNOCIS was conducted and field testing of three on- line carbon-in-ash monitors was completed. Open- and closed-loop testing of GNOCIS was conducted during February 1996. Tests were performed during the month at load levels of 500 MW, 400 MW, and 300 MW. Various combinations of objectives were tested including minimize NO,, minimize fly ash carbon-in-ash, and maximize efficiency. Implementation of the GNOCIS recommendations were greatly facilitated as a result of the enhancements made to the digital control system configuration. Preliminary indications on the performance on GNOCIS are encouraging.
Also, field testing of three on-line carbon-in-ash monitors being evaluated at Hammond 4 was completed during February 1996. During the past eight to twelve months these monitors have been evaluated as to their accuracy, repeatability, reliability, and service requirements. The instruments that were tested include Applied Synergistics FOCUS, Camrac CAM, and Clyde-Sturtevant S E W . Preparation of the project final report is continuing with approximately 50 percent completed to date.
8
3.3. Short-Term Testing
A total of twenty-four short-term tests were conducted first quarter 1996 over a period of six days in February (Table 4). Fifteen of these tests were in association with GNOCIS and nine were for the evaluation of the on-line carbon-in-ash analyzers. These tests are discussed in Sections 3-5 and 3-6, respectively. 3.4. Long-Term Generation and Emissions Long-term data collection continued during this quarter. Unit generation is shown in Figures 5 and 6. As shown, the unit was run at minimum (approximately 200 MW) to maximum loads (approximately 540 MW) during this quarter. The unit operated at a capacity factor of near 30 percent and was off-line approximately 50 percent of the time this quarter. The capacity factor for the unit was much greater than that exhibited during fourth quarter 1995 (20 percent). Average load was approximately 150 and 285 MW when off-time was included and excluded, respectively. NO, emissions for this period are shown in Figures 7 through 9. The average NO, emission rate for the period was 0.42 lb/MBtu -- the emission rate during Phase 3B was approximately 0.40 1bMBtu. The emission limit for this unit is 0.50 lb/MBtu. NO, emissions exhibited more dependence on unit load than in prior phases (Figure 9). The band around the mean represents k two standard deviations. SO2 emissions during this quarter are shown in Figures 10 through 12. SO2 emissions were generally consistent during this quarter. The mean SO2 emission rate for the quarter was approximately 2500 l b h with total emissions for the period being near 2500 tons. As shown in Figure 12, the SOz emission rate is, as expected, linearly related to load. Stack gas mass flow rates for the period are depicted in Figures 13 through 15. As shown, mean gas flow rate is roughly linear with load.
9
Table 4: Short-Term Tests Conducted First Quarter 1996 Test 152-1 152-2 152-3
....................
....................
.................... 1524 .................... 152-5
153-1 153-2 153-3 153-4 154-1 154-2 154-3 155-1 155-2 155-3 155-4 156-1 156-2 156-3
157-1 157-2
157-3 157-4 157-5 157-6
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
?est abortt bTest abom
Date 8-Feb-96 8-Feb-96 8-Feb-96 8Feb-96 8-Feb-96
9-Feb-96 9-Feb-96 9-Feb-96 9-Fe b-96 13-Feb-96 13-Feb-96 13-Feb-96 15-Feb-96 15-Feb-96 15-Feb-96 15-Feb-96 16-Feb-96 16-Feb-96 16-Feb-96
22-Fe b-96 22-Feb-96 22-Feb-96 22-Feb-96 22-Feb-96 22-Feb-96
........................
........................
........................
.........................
.........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
.........................
........................
..........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
1 - operator chr f - failure of GI
U
N
Load Description Type 480 Full-Load I Low 0 2 LO1 480 Full-Load I Mid 0 2 LO1 480 Full-Load I High 0 2 LO1 400 Mid-Load / Mid 0 2 LO1 400 Mid-Load I Low 0 2 LO1 300 Mid-Load I Mid 02 LO1 300 Mid-Load / Low 02 LO1 300 Mid-Load / High 0 2 LO1 390 Mid-Load / High 0 2 LO1 500 Full-Load I Min NOx GNOCIS 500 Full-Load I Min LO1 GNOCIS 500 Full-Load / Min NOx GNOCIS 300 Mid-Load I Min NOx GNOCIS 300 Mid-Load I Min NOx GNOCIS 300 Mid-Load I Min LO1 GNOCIS 300 Mid-Load I Min NOx GNOCIS 400 Mid-Load I Min NOx GNOCIS
400 Mid-Load I Min LO1 GNOCIS 400 Mid-Load I Max Eff GNOCIS
255 Low-Load I Min NOx GNOCIS 260 Low-Load I Min LO1 GNOCIS
250 Low-Load I Min LO1 GNOCIS
250 Low-Load I Min NOx GNOCIS
250 Low-Load I Max Eff I Min NOx I LO1 10 GNOCIS 220 Low-Load I Min LO1 GNOCIS
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
iged mills during test. IOCIS optimizer.
MOOS None None None
E E B B B B
None None
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
........................
........................
........................
None B B B B
None
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
None None
D,F D,F C D C,D C,D C D
........................
........................
.......................
.......................
.......................
........................
........................
NOx LO1 , .40 9.3
.44 8.2
.49 6.3
.44 9.5
.38 11.1
.37 7.5
.34 9.4
.42 5.7
.38 7.6
.47 -
.46 -
.44 -
.39 -
.40 -
.40 -
.38 -
.40 -
.42 -
.39 -
.30 - a
.27 -
.26 -
, ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................
1 ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ - ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ - b
b ........................................ -
10
600
500
400 3 W- (D 300 0 J t i 5 200
100
0
0 Y
0
27-D~c 16-Jan 5-Feb PIFeb 1 &Mar 5-Apr
Date
Figure 5: First Quarter 1996 Generation
1200 , 1
Figure 6: First Quarter 1996 Generation Histogram
11
a
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0
0
U 0
U
E 0
n
27-D~c 16-Jan 5 - k b 25-Feb 16-Mar SApr
Date
Figure 7: First Quarter 1996 NO, Emission Levels
1200
1000 - -
800 ..
600 - -
400 -.
200 - -
0,
Corresponds to Unit Off-Line
Number of 15 minute readings
1 >. 0 C
U b e!
NOx Category, IbMBtu
Figure 8: First Quarter 1996 NO, Emission Level Histogram
12
S s P E
co' C 0 to to
w
.-
.E
H
0.9 - - - 0.8 ..
0.7 .~
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Load, MW
Figure 9: First Quarter 1996 NO, Emission vs. Load Characteristic
12000 - -
f 10000 - - s L
27-D~c 16-Jan 5-Feb 25-Feb 16-Mar 5-Apr
Date
Figure 10: First Quarter 1996 SOz Emission Levels
13
1200 I 1000
800 6 C
CT 2 600
2 LL 400
200
0
Number of 15 minute readings Corresponds to Unit Off-Line
1- 1 6
* M i m i m i - , - ,
0 3000 5000 7000 9000 11000
SO2 Category, lblhr
Figure 11: First Quarter 1996 SO2 Emission Histogram
L
f P on E 0 on on
w
.- E
i
12000 T
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
T i
T * T il
T i
T i
T i
Ti i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Load, MW
Figure 12: First Quarter 1996 SO2 Emissions vs. Load Characteristic
14
1.20508 I 1.00508
8.00507 K
- 6 . 0 0 H 7
4.00Eto7
$ 2.00Eto7
0.00500
E P
LL
Y
u)
27-DeC 16-Jan 5Feb 25Feb 16-Mar 5-Apr
Date
Figure 13: First Quarter 1996 Stack Mass Flow Rate Levels
h 0 S al U
Y
a 2
700 .. Corresponds to Number of 15 minute readings
600 .. /
500 .. 400 -. /” 300 ~~
200 --
100 - -
Unit Off-Line
0, m , - , m : O.OOE+OO 2.00Eto7 4.00Eco7 6.00507 8.00507 1.00508
Stack Mass Flow Rate Category, klbrnlhr
Figure 14: First Quarter 1996 Stack Mass Flow Rate Histogram
15
L
f P
B
12000 T
10000 ~-
8000 ..
6000 .~
4000 .. T 20001 i
T T TI i i il
T i i i
[ i i
o ! 0 100 200 300
Load, MW
400 500 600
Figure 15: First Quarter 1996 Stack Mass Flow Rate vs. Load Characteristic
16
3.5. Advanced Controls and Optimization
The software and methodology to be demonstrated at Hammond Unit 4 is the Generic NO, Control Intelligent System (GNOCIS) whose development is being funded by a consortium consisting of the Electric Power Research Institute, PowerGen (a U.K. power producer), Southern Company, U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, and U.S. Department of Energy [6] . GNOCIS is a methodology that can result in improved boiler efficiency and reduced NO, emissions from fossil fuel fired boilers. Using a numerical model of the combustion process, GNOCIS applies an optimizing procedure to identify the best set points for the plant on a continuous basis. The optimization occws over a wide range of operating conditions. Once determined, the recommended set points can be implemented automatically without operator intervention (closed-loop), or, at the plant’s discretion, conveyed to the plant operators for implementation (open-loop). GNOCIS is designed to run on a stand-alone workstation networked to the digital control system, or internally on some digital control systems.
GNOCIS is currently under development and has been or is scheduled to be implemented at PowerGen’s Kingsnorth Unit 1 (a 500 MW tangentially-fired unit with ICL separated and close-coupled overfire air NO, combustion system) and Alabama Power’s Gaston Unit 4 (a 250 MW B&W unit with B&W XCL low NO, burners) prior to comprehensive testing at Hammond. Following “re-characterization” of Hammond 4, the advanced controls and optimization strategies will be activated and run open-loop. If the results from the open-loop testing warrant, the advanced controls/optimization package will be operated closed-loop with testing (short- and long-term). A brief review of the major developments during fourth quarter 1995 regarding the GNOCIS activities at Gaston, Kingsnorth, and Hammond are provided below. Gaston A summary of the activities and status of the GNOCIS project at Gaston Unit 4 follows:
0 As originally conceived and proposed to the project funders, the Gaston 4 implementation of GNOCIS was to be open-loop only. Although GNOCIS can be used in this manner, in order to obtain the full-benefit of GNOCIS, a closed-loop implementation is required. To this end, the GNOCIS implementation at Gaston 4 has been enhanced to allow closed-loop operation. GNOCIS first went closed-loop on April 3. No major problems were found.
Preliminary testing followed the completion of the closed-loop modifications. The primary purpose of this testing was to test the functionality of the closed-loop mode and to detect any software problems. Based on results from these tests, it was evident that the combustion model required retraining in regards to NO,. The boiler efficiency and LO1 predictions appeared satisfactory. Since Unit 3 data is now available, an evaluation will be made as to how best to incorporate data from that unit to improve the Unit 4 model predictions for NO,. Although preliminary, efficiency improvements on the order of 0.5 percent were achieved during these tests.
0 Modifications have been made to the Unit 3 DCS to enable monitoring and archiving of data from that unit for use in the GNOCIS models. The data is being archived on
17
the GNOCIS NT platform. These modifications were made to support the Unit 4 GNOCIS model development but can also be used for the GNOCIS implementation on this unit. A Mark & Wedell (M&W) on-line carbon-in-ash monitor has been installed on Gaston Unit 4. The LO1 data from this instrument is being incorporated into the GNOCIS models. An example of the output of the device is provided in Attachment A. To date, the instrument has shown high reliability. Although not part of the GNOCIS program at Gaston, the analyzer will be evaluated for availability, accuracy, and maintainability. The Gaston 4 Site Report is now being prepared. This not-for-public-release report will document the implementation and performance of GNOCIS at Gaston 4. PowerGen and SCS will jointly issue a report addressing GNOCIS at Kingsnorth and Gaston. This combined report is intended for public release.
0
Kingsnorth Testing of GNOCIS at Kingsnorth has been completed and GNOCIS is now being used in a production mode at the plant, however, further ad hoc testing of GNOCIS may be conducted at Kingsnorth in the future. The current GNOCIS installation at Kingsnorth is based on a linear model and constrained linear optimization routines. This installation may be modified to incorporate the non-linear models, such as those used at Gaston and Hammond. Hammond Following the completion of installation, preliminary testing of GNOCIS at Hammond 4 began during February 1996 with tests being conducted at loads of 500 MW, 400 MW, and 300 MW (Table 5). Various combinations of objectives were tested including minimizing NO, emissions, minimizing carbon-in-ash, and maximizing efficiency in both open- and closed-loop modes. Implementation of the GNOCIS recommendations were greatly facilitated as a result of enhancements made to the DCS. The primary purpose of these initial tests was to identify problems with the GNOCIS model(s) and implementation. For these tests, recommendations were provided by GNOCIS for excess oxygen, individual mill coal flows, and overfire air flow to each corner of the windbox. GNOCIS operated in both open- and closed-loop modes.
TabRe 5: GNOCIS Testing Conducted First Quarter 1996 -
Test
............. 154-1
............. 154-2
............. 154-3
............. 155-1
............. 155-2
............. 155-3
............. 155-4
............. 156-1
............. 156-2
............. 156-3
............. 157-1
............. 157-2
............. 157-3
............ 157d
............ 1574
............ 1574
Appr. Start Time
13-Feb-96 Open-Loop --I-- 12:30 Min NOx
APP!:.stOP.T.i.T!?.. ........................
........................................................ 13-Feb-96 Open-Loop
I3I3O I 13:OO Min LO1 14:30
13-Feb-96 Open-Loop 14:OO Min NOx 15:30
15-Feb-96 Open-Loop 9:40 Min NOx
........................................................
........................................................
10:30 Min LO1 12:50
15-Feb-96 Open-Loop i2:lO Min LO1
........................................................
........................................................ 15-Feb-96 Open-Loop
14130 I 14:OO Min NOx 15:20
........................................................ 16-Feb-96 Open-Loop
11:30 Min NOx ........................................................
16-Feb-96 Open-Loop 13:30 I 12:50 Min LO1 14:OO
16-Feb-96 Open-Loop 13:45 Max Eff
........................................................
14:30 I Min NOx 16:OO
22-Feb-96 Closed-LooF 15:30 Min LO1
.......................................................
17:30 22-Feb-96 Closed-LooF
17:30 Min LO1
.......................................................
19:oo 22-Feb-96
............................... 19:oo 19:30
22-Feb-96 19:30 20:oo
22-Feb-96
...............................
................................ 20:oo Min LO1
...................... Closed-Loo1
Min NOx
Closed-Loo1 Min NOx, Max Eff LO1 < 10
Closed-Loo
........................
......................
Mills clamDed ......................................................................... O<Eff<100 1 AOFA clamped 0.2 NOX 1.0 -0.2 < A02 < 0.2
O<LOI<O I -5.2 < Mills 5.2 O<Eff<100 1 AOFA clamped .........................................................................
0.2 < NOX < 0.2 -0.2 < A02 < 0.2 O<L01<20 Mills clamped O<Eff<lOO AOFA clamped
O<L01<20 Mills clamped O<Eff<lOO AOFA clamped
O<LOI<O Mills clamped
........................................................................... 0.2 < NOX < 0.2 -0.2 < A02 0.2
........................................................................... 0.2 < NOX 1 .O -0.2 < A02 < 0.2
......................................................................... O<Eff<100 1 pOFA clamped 0.2 < NOx < 1 .O 0.2 < A02 < 0.2
-5.2 < Mills < 5.2 AOFA clamped
-5.2 < Mills < 5.2 1 B Mill clamped
......................................................................... O<LOI<O
O<Eff<lOO
O<LO1<20 O<Eff<100
0.2 < NOX < 0.2 0.2 < A02 0.2
......................................................................... qOFAclamped 0.2 < NOx < 0.2 0 2 < A02 < 0.2
O<Eff<100 1 AOFA clamped 0.2 < NOx < 0.2 0.2 A02 4 0.2
......................................................................... O<LO1<20 Mills clamped O<Eff<lOO AOFA clamped
0.2 < A02 < 0.2 O<L01<20 -5.2 < Mills 5.2
0.2 < A02 < 0.2
........................................................................... 0.2 < NOx < 1 .O
100~Eff~100 -5 < AOFA < 5 ........................................................................... 0.2 < NOX < 0.2
O<LO1<20 Mills clamped O<Eff<lOO AOFA clamped ........................................................................
0.2 < NOx < 1 .O 1 0.2 < A02 < 0.2 Mills clamped
AOFA clamped I Mills clamped 0.2 < NOX 1.0 0.2 < A02 < 0.2
........................................................................ O<LOI<O
O<Eff<lOO
O<LOI<O O<EffclOO AOFA clamped
0.2 NOx < 0.2 1 0.2 < A02 < 0.2 ........................................................................
OCLOl<20 Mills clamped O<Eff<100 AOFA clamped
0.2 < NOx < 0.2 O<L01<10
1 OO<Eff<lOO
0.2 NOx < 1 .O
..........................................................................
.......................................................................... O<LOI<O
O<Eff<100
Notes
.............................................................................. O2 recommendation flip flops.
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
.............................................................................. First closed-loop test. Test aborted when operator changed mills in service. Move suppresion on O2 zero.
..............................................................................
Move suppresion on O2 zero.
............................................................................... Optimizer failure due to starting point being outside feasible region.
............................................................................... Optimizer failure due to starting point being outside feasible region.
19
3.6. On-Line Carbon-in-Ash Monitors
A subsidiary goal of the Wall-Fired project is the evaluation of advanced instrumentation as applied to combustion control. Based on this goal, three on-line carbon-in-ash (CIA) monitors have been procured for this project and are being evaluated as to their: 0 Reliability and maintenance, 0 Accuracy and repeatability, and
Suitability for use in the control strategies being demonstrated at Hammond Unit 4.
A Clyde-Sturtevant S E W monitor samples from two fixed locations at the economizer outlet. The outputs (carbon-in-ash and system alarm) have been connected to the DCS for archival purposes and incorporation into the control logic. This monitor was commissioned during November 1994. A CAMRAC Corporation CAM monitor, installed February 1995, samples from a single movable location at the precipitator inlet. An Applied Synergistics’ FOCUS, commissioned July 1995, is installed near the nose of the furnace. These CAM and S E W were described previously in the Third Quarter 1994 Technical Progress Report. The FOCUS system was described in the Second Quarter 1995 Technical Progress Report.
The first round of testing of these instruments was conducted July 20 and 21, 1995 and was described previoulsy in the Third Quarter 1995 Technical Progress Report. A subsequent round of testing was conducted on February 8 and 9,1996 (Appendix B). As with the July 1995 tests, during each of the nine tests, composite duct samples were collected from the flue gas stream at the precipitator inlet - one each from the A and B side of the precipitator. These samples were collected at three different loads (500, 400, and 300 MW) and oxygen levels (low, nominal, and high). In addition to the composite duct samples, precipitator hopper samples were collected from the first row of hoppers (out of three rows total) on the A and B sides during each test. An effort was made to clear the hoppers before each test. The first row of hoppers typically receive near 80 percent of the fly ash collected by the precipitator.
Aspects of the accuracy of these instruments include:
0 Representativeness of Sample Used in the Analysis (Spatial) - For all these instruments, only a subset of the ash passing into the precipitator is observed or collected for further analysis. Since this flue gaslash stream is in general non- homogenous, the sampling technique can lead to substantial error in the estimate.
0 Accuracy of the Measurement Techniques (Inherent) - All the devices tested infer carbon content of the “collected” sample indirectly. S E W uses a correlation based on sample capacitance, CAM uses microwave absorption, and FOCUS uses a method based on hot particle counting. The accuracy of these techniques depends on numerous assumptions concerning the characteristics of the flue gadash stream.
Timeliness (Temporal) - Delays and time lags in the sampling and analysis mechanisms employed by the instruments affect their use for on-line control of fly ash carbon.
0
20
Results of the testing conducted with the carbon-in-ash analyzers this quarter are discussed below.
Percent Carbon VS. LO1 Loss-on-ignition (LOI) is a measure of the combustibles contained in a sample and is used frequently to represent carbon content of the sample; however, the two are not synonymous. The LO1 indication is also affected by other non-carbonaceous combustible material in the ash, such as sulfur. As in the July 1995 testings and as can be seen from Figure B-1, for the ash collected at Hammond, LO1 is an excellent estimator of the carbon content in the sample. As a result of other combustibles in the ash sample, the LO1 percentage is slightly greater (less than 0.5 percent) than the carbon percentage.
Using Hopper Samples to Estimate Boiler Carbon Losses In most instances, it is easier and less time consuming to obtain fly ash to be used in determining boiler carbon losses from the precipitator hoppers rather than from the flue gas stream directly. However, there are numerous problems with this approach including:
Correlating ash collection times with boiler operating conditions, and Weighting of the collected ash samples so that the combined sample is representative of the ash in the flue gas stream.
These problems are not substantially different than that of the carbon-in-ash monitors. Because this method is used frequently, it was felt that it would serve as a useful benchmark for the other methods. Figures B-2 through B-3 show results from Tests 152 and 153 conducted during the February 1996 testing. As shown in these two figures, the B-side hopper samples provided a much better estimate of the isokinetic samples than the A-side. For the July 1995 tests, the converse was true. The reason for this swap is unknown, however, it does exhibit some of the difficulty in using this method. SEKAM vs. Isokinetic Samule LO1 A comparison of the S E W readings, obtained by time averaging over the duration of the tests the signal to the DCS, with the LO1 of the samples collected manually is shown in Figure B-4. Due to problems with the S E W sampling system, this system was not available for the first five tests conducted during February (152-1 through 152-5). Although available for the balance of the tests, the sampling system was still problematic and may have contributed to the relatively poor performance of the SEKAM unit for these tests as compared to this unit during the July 1995 tests. It should be noted that the averaged readings obtained from the SEKAM were not compensated for delays or lags in sampling and analysis inherent in the system. CAM vs. Isokinetic Samule LO1 A comparison of the CAM readings, obtained by time averaging over the duration of the tests the signal to the DCS, with the LO1 of the samples collected manually is shown in Figure B-5. As shown, the CAM unit appeared to represent trends well during these
21
tests. As with the S E W , the CAM readings were not compensated for delays or lags in sampling and analysis.
FOCUS vs. Isokinetic Sample LO1 A comparison of the FOCUS readings and the isokinetic samples is shown in Figures B-6 and B-7. The FOCUS values are derived using equations provided by Applied Synergistics. These equations utilize the counts per second providec by the FOCUS system, in addition to excess oxygen and load to estimate LOI. As shown, that although the FOCUS system provided general trends, it is evident that the sensitivity of the device to changes in LO1 was relatively small for these particular tests. The test phase of these analyzers is now completed and a report is being prepared documenting their performance.
22
4. FUTURE PLANS The following table is a quarterly outline of the activities scheduled for the remainder of the project :
Table 6: Future Plans Quarter Activity
Second Quarter 1996 0 Advanced Controls Testing 0 Final Reporting & Disposition
Third Quarter 1996 0 Advanced Controls Testing 0 Final Reporting & Disposition
Fourth Quarter 1996 0 Final Reporting & Disposition
23
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. 500 MW Demonstration Of Advanced Wall-Fired Combustion Techniques For The Reduction Of Nitrogen Oxide (Nod Emissions From Coal-Fired Boilers - Phase I Baseline Tests Report. Southern Company Services, Inc., Birmingham, AL: 1992.
2. 500 MW Demonstration Of Advanced Wall-Fired Combustion Techniques For The Reduction Of Nitrogen Oxide (Nod Emissions From Coal-Fired Boilers - Phase 2 Advanced Overfire Air Tests Report. Southern Company Services, Inc., Birmingham, AL: 1992.
3. 500 MW Demonstration Of Advanced Wall-Fired Combustion Techniques For The Reduction Of Nitrogen Oxide (Nod Emissions From Coal-Fired Boilers - Phase 3A Low NO, Burner Tests Report (Drap). Southern Company Services, Inc., Birmingham, AL: 1993.
4. 500 MW Demonstration Of Advanced Wall-Fired Combustion Techniques For The Reduction Of Nitrogen Oxide (NO4 Emissions From Coal-Fired Boilers - Phase 3B Low NO, Burner Tests & Advanced Overfire Air Report. Southern Company Services, Inc., Birmingham, AL: 1995.
5. 500 MW Demonstration Of Advanced Wall-Fired Combustion Techniques For The Reduction Of Nitrogen Oxide (Nod Emissions From Coal-Fired Boilers - Field Chemical Emissions Monitoring: Overfire Air and Overfire Air/Low NO, Burner Operation Final Report. Southern Company Services, Inc., Birmingham, AL: 1993.
6. Holmes, R., Squires, R., Sorge, J., Chakraborty, R., McIlvried, T., "Progress Report on the Development of a Generic NO, Control Intelligent System (GNOCIS)," EPRI 1994 Workshop on NO, Controls for Utility Boilers, May 1 1 - 13, 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona.
7. Holmes, R., Squires, R., Sorge, J., Chakraborty, R., McIlvried, T., "Progress Report on the Development of a Generic NO, Control Intelligent System (GNOCIS)," EPRI 1994 Workshop on NO, Controls for Utility Boilers, May 1 1-1 3, 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Appendix A
GNOCIS Testing Conducted First Quarter 1996
GNOCIS Testing Conducted February 13, 1996
O<Eff 1 00 AOFA clamped 13:30 154-2 13-Feb-96 500 None Hamcon31 FC Open-Loop 0.2 < NOx 1.0 -0.2 A02 0.2
13:OO Min LO1 O<LOI<O -5.2 < Mills < 5.2 14:30 O<Eff<100 AOFA clamped
154-3 13-Feb-96 500 None Hamcon31 FC Open-Loop 0.2 NOx < 0.2 -0.2 A02 < 0.2 O<LO1<20 Mills clamped 14:OO OeEffcl 00 AOFA clamped 15:30
155-1 15-Feb-96 300 B Hamcon31 FC Open-Loop 0.2 c NOx 0.2 -0.2 < A02 0.2 9:40 Min NOx O<LO1<20 Mills clamped I I :40 O<Eff<IOO AOFA clamped
......_...... .................................. ................................ ................................................................. ........................ .................................. ...................................... ........................................................................ - ..............
.................................. ................................. .............................................. ..... .............. .. ...................... ................................... ...................................... ....................................................................................... Min NOx
.............., .................................. ................................ ................................................................. ........................ ....................... * ........... ..................................... ~ ........................................................................ - ..............
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 08:49:48
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 08:20: 15
40000 ' 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 09:14:24
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 09:25:38
12:oop 2/13,6:00 %me
GNOCIS Testing Conducted February 15, 1996
-5.2 < Mills c 5.2
I I I I I I AOFAclamped I
Data: 9602 Date: 091 19/96 08:2 1 :08
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 08:50:40
6.00 5.00 4.00 3 .OO 2.00
100.0
50.0
0.0 100.0
50.0
0.0 100.0
50.0
0.0 100.0
50.0
0.0 600 500 400 300
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 09:15:06
20.00 15.00 10.00 5 .OO 0.00
20.00 15.00 10.00 5 .OO 0.00
20.00 1 5.00 10.00 5 .oo 0.00
0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200
Daw. 9602 Date: 091 19/96 0912554
800.0 ~-- - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ TPAHA GI
750.0 : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - ,
700.0 i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - '
750.0 : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , . - - - - - . , 700.0 ......................................................................................... 650.0
2/15, 12:OOp 2/15,6:00 Time
GNOCIS Testing Conducted February 16, 1996
I 11:30 I I I I Min NOx. I O<LOI<20 I Mills clamped I I ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................E� I I 13:30 O<Eff<100 AOFA clamped
Hamcon31 FC Open-Loop 0.2 < NOx c 0.2 0.2 < A 0 2 < 0.2 I l6;F!? I 400 I None 1 I Min LO1 I O<LOIc20 I Mills clamped 14:OO OcEff400 AOFA clamped
156-3 16-Feb-96 400 None Hamcon31 FC Open-Loop 0.2 < NOx 1 .O 0.2 < A02 < 0.2 13:45 Max Eff O<LOk20 -5.2 < Mills < 5.2
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................J�
1500 100<Eff~lOO -5 < AOFA 5
Data: 9602 Date: 091 19/96 085 i :04
6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00,
0.0 100.0
50.0
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 09: IT20
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 09:26:05
750.0 .......................................................................................... 700 0 L .........................................................................................
. a
650.0 I - - - - - - - - - - - - . - ..................................... .I
700.0 > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - - - .....................................
650.0 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .......................................
750.0 :-------------------------------------.-----------------------------------------~-------~
- _ 600.0 L ................................................................................,......., 800.0 ......................................................................................... TSAHA A 0
650.0 I . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2/15, 12:OOp 2/15,6:0
GNOCIS Testing Conducted February 22, 1996
Appr. Start Time Appr. Stop Time
14:30 16:OO
1530
............................................................................... 157-2 22-Feb-96 260
17:30 .............................................................................. 157-3 1 22-Feb-96 I 250
17:30 19:oo
19:oo 19:30
19:30 20:oo
.............................................................................. 157-4 22-Feb-96 250
, ............................................................................... 157-5 22-Feb-96 250
................................................................................ 157-6 22-Feb-96 250
20:oo 21:oo
.............................. D S
.............................. D,F
.............................. C,D
.............................. C,D
.............................. C,D
.............................. C,D
............................. Hamcon31 FC
.............................. Hamcon31 FC
.............................. Hamcon31 FC
.............................. Hamcon31 FC
.............................. Hamcon31 FC
.............................. Hamcon31 FC
open-Loop Min NOx
Closed- Loop
Min LO1 Closed-
Loop Min LO1 Closed-
Loop Min NOx Closed-
Loop Min NOx, Max Eff LO1 c 10 Closed-
Loop Min LO1
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
I ................................................................................................................................................................ O<Eff<100 f AOFA clamped 0.2 c NOx c 1 .O 0.2 c A02 c 0.2 First closed-loop test.
O<LOICO Mills clamped Test aborted when operator changed milk OcEff400 AOFA clamped in service.
0.2 c A02 c 0.2 O<LOI<O Mills ClamDed
................................................................................................................................................................ 0.2 c NOx C 1.0 Move suppresion on O2 zero.
O<L01<20 Mills clamped OcEffcl 00 AOFA clamped
OCL01<10 being outside feasible region.
................................................................................................................................................................. 0.2 c NOx c 0.2
IOOcEffcl 00
Optimzer failure due to starting point
.................................................................................................................................................................. 0.2 c NOx c 1.0
OCLOI<O being outside feasible region. O<Eff<100
Optimzer failure due to starting point
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 08:52:00
7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00
100.0
50.0
0.0 100.0
50.0
0.0 100.0
50.0
0.0 100.0
50.0
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 08:22:22
80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 60000 50000
4?89?, 659a 2/22, 12:oop 2/22,6:00 %me
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 09: 15:44
300 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%me 2B,zr- 2/22, 12:oop 2/22, 6:OO
Data: 9602 Date: 09/19/96 09:26: 16
800.0 750.0 700.0 650.0 600.0 800.0 750.0 700.0 650.0 600.0 800.0 750.0 700.0 650.0 600.0 800.0 750.0 700.0 650.0 600.0 800.0 750.0 700.0 650.0 600.0 800.0 750.0 700.0 650.0
6!!f#. 6:59a 2/15, 12:OOp %me
2/15,6:00
Appendix B
Testing of On-Line Carbon-in-Ash Analyzers
February 1996
Table B-I Results of lsokinetic Sampling
Retest
Table B-2 Hopper Sampling
I Test# Date Time Load 0 Excess I Hopper # I Lab %LO1 I Sample ID I Inventory# 152-1 2/8/96 10:40AM 500 3.40 I AA1 I 10.19 I AA08621 I H4PH4B-011
152-2 2/8/96 1:30 PM 500 3.70
I AA2 I 11.14 I 08622 I 0121 08623 08624 08625
BA2 7.10 08626 01 6 I BA3 I 7.54 I 086271
08628 08629
AA2 10.07 08630 AA3 7.72 08631 AA4 I 8.01 I 08632 I 022 I BAl I 5.95 I 08633 I 023 I BA2 I 6.66 I 08634 I 024 I BA3 8.25 08635 025 BA4 9.01 08636 026
152-3 2/8/96 3:30 PM 500 4.26 AA1 7.61 08637 027 AA2 9.49 08638 028
AA3 I 5.82 I 08639) 029 AA4 I 5.08 086401 030
I BAl I 4.64 I 08641 I 031 I I BA2 I 5.05 I 08642 I 0321
BA3 7.10 08643 033 BA4 6.72 08644 034
152-4 2/8/96 6:30 PM 400 4.35 AA1 11.99 08645 035 AA2 11.19 08646 036 AA3 7.37 AA08724 037 AA4 I 10.40 I 08725 BAl I 6.27 I 08726
I BA2 I 8.31 I 08727 I BA3 I 12.00 I 08728
BA4 10.57 08729 152-5 2/8/96 8:30 PM 400 3.54 AA1 12.67 08730
AA2 12.79 08731 I AA3 I 7.66 I 08732
AA4 7.31 08733 046 BA1 10.17 08734 047
Table B-2 (con Hopper Sam
:inued) Aing
~
152-5 2/8/96 8:30 PM 400
153-1 2/9/96 10:20AM 300 4.34
~~ ~~~~
153-2 2/9/96 12:05 P M 300 3.57
153-3 2/9/96 1130 PM 300 5.09
153-4 2/9/96 3:23 PM 400 4.57
13.47 11.85
5.00 BA2 I 6.20 *
5.99 AA2 I 8.07 -+p-
5.74
AA3 8.87 AA4 BA1 BA2 BA3
6.99 3.84 5.29 6.22
10.13 6.25
4.79 6.85 7.19
087361 0491 08737
AA08746 08747
AA087941 061 I 08795 08796 08797 064 08798 08799 08800 08801
08803 088041 071 088051 072 08806l 073 I 08807 08808 08809 08810 0881 1 08812 08813 08814 0881 5 0881 6 I 0881 7
082 083 084
088181 085 0881 91 086 08820 0882 1 08822 089 088231 090
Carbon (%) 15
10
5
0 0
Figure B-I Fly Ash Carbon vs. LO1
Wall-Fired Project Fly Ash Carbon vs. LO1 February 1996 0
5 10 15
LO1 (%)
Figure B-2 Hopper Sample vs. lsokinetic Sample (Side A)
Carbon ("/I) 15
10
5
0
Wa I I- F i red Project Hopper vs. lsokinetic (Side A) February 1996
0 0
0
0
I ,
0 5 10 15
LO1 (%)
Figure B-3 Hopper Sample vs. lsokinetic Sample (Side B)
Carbon ( O h ) 15
10
5
0
Wall-Fired Project Hopper vs. lsokinetic (Side B) February 1996
0.00 5.00
LO1 (%)
10.00 15.00
Figure B-4 SEKAM vs. lsokinetic LO1
0 0
SEKAM LO1 (%)
- Wall-Fired Project SEKAM vs. lsokinetic LO1 February 1996
15
10 -
5 -
- Notes: 1. Unit not operational first 5 tests. 2. Due to sampling problems, unit response time was increased, leading to increased errors. 3. SEKAM performance was much better in July 1995 tests.
0 - I 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5
Lab LO1 (%)
10 15
Figure B-5 CAM vs. lsokinetic LO1
CAM LO1 (%) 15
- Wail-Fired Project CAM vs. lsokinetic LO1 February 1996
10 -
5 -
0 I I
0 5 I O 15
Lab LO1 (%)
15
I O
5
0
Figure B-6 FOCUS vs. lsokinetic LO1 (Side A)
FOCUS LO1 (%)
Wall-Fired Project FOCUS vs. lsokinetic LO1 (Side A) February 1996
0
0 5
0
10
1
15
Lab LO1 (%)
15
10
5
0
Figure B-7 FOCUS vs. lsokinetic LO1 (Side B)
FOCUS LO1 (%) ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
Wall-Fired Project FOCUS vs. lsokinetic LO1 (Side B) February 1996
0
0 5 10 15
Lab LO1 (%)
